"lie, deny and hope they die"

[Cheesehead Craig]

All that is true, I know. But there is great concern over the incidental, unintended concussions in all these other sports, and yet we allow a sport in which the ultimate goal is to cause a concussion.

If we need to have extensive litigation and make changes in the way the game is played to protect against concussions in football, shouldn't we flat out prohibit boxing? If a football player is prohibited from tackling high, or from tackling in a certain way because it might cause a concussion, shouldn't we outlaw hits to the head in boxing, which are specifically intended to cause a concussion?

Boxing never denied it's nature that it's a violent, debilitating sport. Football has.

[Patler]

Boxing never denied it's nature that it's a violent, debilitating sport. Football has.

I don't know that football did, they mostly just said nothing. Anyone with half a brain (does that leave out NFL players???) can easily feel the impact on their own bodies, and see the effects on those long retired. Players were simply in denial about what they should have known.

But, in the long run that is no longer the point. Past admissions and denials no longer matter. We know concussions are frequent in football, everyone now admits that. There is evidence (including boxing) about the bad effects. If that evidence makes us change football rules, why doesn't it mandate a prohibition of boxing? If the argument is that participants assume the risk in boxing, why isn't that also the case in football?

[green_bowl_packer]

Helmet Tester 1912

Supervised by Great Grand Daddy Goodell

[pbmax]

I don't know that football did, they mostly just said nothing. Anyone with half a brain (does that leave out NFL players???) can easily feel the impact on their own bodies, and see the effects on those long retired. Players were simply in denial about what they should have known.

But, in the long run that is no longer the point. Past admissions and denials no longer matter. We know concussions are frequent in football, everyone now admits that. There is evidence (including boxing) about the bad effects. If that evidence makes us change football rules, why doesn't it mandate a prohibition of boxing? If the argument is that participants assume the risk in boxing, why isn't that also the case in football?

I think we can say football (not just the NFL) did more than say nothing. The NCAA had what looks like a reasonable concussion policy on its books and medical literature in 1933. Coaches responded (eventually) by substituting their own diagnosis for that of a medical professional. That is how we came to know "seeing stars", "bell rung" and a "ding".

The legal requirement that participants in boxing be subject to a medical professional before and during the bout is still a step ahead of the NFL. Which only got around to that a couple of years ago on concussions, and is still not there on other injuries.

[denverYooper]

Could be, but I think teenage boxing is still popular in some areas. A lot of HS age kids participate at levels leading up to Golden Gloves tournaments, which I believe is 16+. Kids as young as 10 participate in Silver Gloves competitions.

Last time I checked, Notre Dame still had the Bengal Bouts tournament, which is a campus-wide boxing tournament that lasts from November to March. It is open to boys of all skill levels and starts with training and sparring session before the actual tournament. At one time it was hugely popular. Early bouts were often ugly, when an experienced boxer met a nonathletic kid trying to gain fame. I wonder how much longer they will continue it?

Yes, they have (or had?) a similar women's boxing tournament, too.

Even if there are some areas where teenage boxing is still popular, that level of participation is dwarfed by the number of youth participating in Pop Warner, which can start as young as 5. I can go drive by any of several parks right now and see a number of teams practicing. So while you note the existence of some youth boxing, I'd put money on the difference in bodies being at least an order of magnitude, maybe more.

[mraynrand]

When the hell are they gonna make a documentary about the brain problems suffered by football FANS including everything from stress and high blood pressure to straight up heart attacks and brain aneurysms as a result of over-analyzing, discussing, interacting, arguing, watching, and most importantly posting on football forums like this one? Hmm?

Won't you please help Tyrone Bigguns?

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't know that football did, they mostly just said nothing. Anyone with half a brain (does that leave out NFL players???) can easily feel the impact on their own bodies, and see the effects on those long retired. Players were simply in denial about what they should have known.

But, in the long run that is no longer the point. Past admissions and denials no longer matter. We know concussions are frequent in football, everyone now admits that. There is evidence (including boxing) about the bad effects. If that evidence makes us change football rules, why doesn't it mandate a prohibition of boxing? If the argument is that participants assume the risk in boxing, why isn't that also the case in football?

So why just pick on boxing? Why not outlaw all contact sports?

[Joemailman]

So why just pick on boxing? Why not outlaw all contact sports?

Well, there's only one sport where the ultimate goal is to punch a guy in the head until he can't get up.

[mraynrand]

Well, there's only one sport where the ultimate goal is to punch a guy in the head until he can't get up.

You've never played darts in England, that's for sure.

[pbmax]

You've never played darts in England, that's for sure.

Or soccer hooligan.

[Iron Mike]

I sprained my coccyx carrying out a difficult maneuver with a cheerleader once.